Monday, December 28, 2009

Iran: Power Slipping to Streets

Written by Babak Kasrayi
Monday, 28 December 2009

Over the last few days, mass demonstrations have erupted again in Iran. Millions are on the streets and there are reports of the people taking control of the streets, burning down police stations and even of police refusing to fire on demonstrators. These could be the last days of the hated IRI regime. If a revolutionary leadership were present, the hours of the Islamic Republic would be counted. We publish this article with lots of eyewitness reports from the ground.

Read the rest here

PersianToEnglish Blog for updates.


jams o donnell said...

Here's hoping we are seeing the fall of the Iranian regime. What replaces it is another matter and one of deep concern

SecondComingOfBast said...

It's probably going to end up being settled in favor of some reformist element within the Iranian regime, resulting in some liberalization of some policies, but I doubt there's going to be any really big changes.

The mullahs hope and pray every day that Israel and the US will do something provocative so they can use that to get more people on their side, which is probably why they took over that oil field in Iraq.

Larry Gambone said...

At the very least, a more liberal regime would take the wind of of the US and Israel's sails and allow a space for an alternative to develop within Iranian society. Imagine if trade unionists, socialists and anarchists were no longer persecuted and allowed to organize...

Frank Partisan said...

Jams: I believe whatever replaces the fundamentalists will be secular.

Pagan: The ramifications for Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the Middle East are enormous, if the mullahs are overthrown.

Larry: If you open the box even a little...

SecondComingOfBast said...

I think I should point out that somebody else that might have the "wind taken out of their sails" if the mullahs were overthrown, are Hamas and Hezbollah, both of who would lose a great deal of the present source of their support, including a respectable amount of their funding.

That would be what I would call "the plus side", especially if it enables the Israelis to finally exterminate that vermin, vermin of course meaning said organizations, not the people they claim to "represent".

Having hopefully made clear by that who I would like to see exterminated, I'll go on to say every last man, woman, and child among those two groups can be wiped out as far as I'm concerned, along with the Iranian "holy men".

Let's add to the fire all of the radical imams of all sects of Islam, in all countries, along with their most virulent and determined supporters. It wouldn't be that hard, because they never gravitate too far from each other. A few well-placed bombs, daisy cutters, and napalm might well work wonders.

Then maybe the world can finally make some kind of measurable progress towards establishing this "peace" people on the left allegedly care so much about.

troutsky said...

Exactly Pagan. Peace through extermination is a tried and true method which has worked repeatedly through history wherever it has been tried.

A bourgeois revolution would remove much of Israel's impunity. However,it is still a divided society as evidenced by pro-regime demonstrations yesterday and an accomodation could be a long way off.

SecondComingOfBast said...


What has been demonstrated repeatedly by history is that you can't negotiate with Islamic militants and radicals, you have to kill them, and hit them so hard they finally get the message that if they keep their crap up, they will die.

Don't you get that you are dealing here with religious fanatics who can't be reached with appeals to logic and reason?

Anonymous said...

Man! I wish I could read Arabic.

Democracy hasn't been in Iran. If they go socialist, communist, capitalist, or something completely new; true democracy [not being told who won before the vote is counted] will give opportunities to all.

tony said...

I cant see the near future being secular.The alternatives to the current mob seem more likely to be either a "watered-down Islam" (eg Turkey) Or Lots of Fragments + Factions running around claiming to be Al-Qaeda ( eg Afganistan).
The "Turkey -Option" would be a small improvement but hardly much good news for ordinary people in Iran.
This seems to me to be a battle between Political Islam and latent bourgeois folk.A Very Sorry Dance indeed.
w.v.= terwor !

SecondComingOfBast said...

When I hear demands from the protesters for an end to the oppression of women, I will be impressed. And I'm not talking about "equal rights" in a political sense (something women will never have in a Muslim ruled nation, sorry folks) but the simple right to walk down the street without being gang raped or have acid thrown in their faces because a group of savage assholes fly into a rage because one of them saw a flash of ankle. Let me hear these protesters demand an end to that crap.

Or where some rich old freak decides he wants to make some cute little eight year old he happens to take a fancy to his fifth wife, so he pretty much buys her, and if he decides to dispose of her later when the novelty wears off, her parents say, well what the hell, she must have been a little tramp.

More than likely, if a woman was to set foot in the middle of this bunch, they'd better make damn sure their veils are in place.


I'm sorry, but democracy as expressed by most people is a joke. Anybody can have a democracy, that's no biggie. All democracy is is mob rule anyway, or to be more precise, the illusion of majority rule.

The real trick is transforming democracy into a republic, with the rule of law, and with guaranteed rights (not privileges, mind you, but rights) for the minorities involved, where lo and behold the "leaders" are even held accountable, and where the true rulers are the actual people.

Let me see that kind of democracy in a Muslim country-or for that matter in a European country-and I'll say job well fucking done.

Until I see the potential for that, in Iran, and Venezuela, and Germany, then I'm not going to get myself all worked up expressing a whole lot of support for these people. The best I can do is encourage them to keep their shit to their side of their border and away from my side of this one.

Ducky's here said...

That's right Pagan, worked like a charm in southeast Asia.

Now, it's time for all the little wannabe's to admit that all this talk about ordnance and the like is just the old desire to find an identity in imperialist conflict.

Religious radicals aren't the only ones beyond the reach of logic and reason.

Would you please point out all the bad Muslims so we can avoid killing the entire population?

The world is so simple. Just a question of ordnance, tonnage, throw weights ... and a few folks sitting in the Libertarian sand box thinking they are morally above it all.

Frank Partisan said...

I'll reply tonight.

I have new information about Hezbollah and Hamas, in relationship to Iran.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Hey Duckster-

How many North Vietnamese, NVA and Viet Cong LEADERS did we kill again? Here's a clue, not many.

The major troublemakers among the Muslim radicals aren't that difficult to spot, they tend to make their presence known in all the better mosques in Europe and the Middle East.

All it takes is the heart to shoot through the human shields (willing enablers) to get to them. No problem here.

Larry Gambone said...

I don't think any of us here know what is going to happen in Iran, other than the present regime will go at some point. I have learned to be cautious about these things ever since 1989 when I proclaimed that the USSR would go social democratic!

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: Iran subsidized Hezbollah at the start, but not now. They have their own resources. They are quite strong, with wealthy iman support. Gaza showed Iran isn't much help to Palestinians. How is it possible physically for Iran to arm Hamas without going through Egypt?

The US will never destroy Islamic fundamentalism. It was the US who invented political Islam, to counter Nasser. These guys are needed to keep capitalism going. They only oppose their expansion.

The US is overextended. They want an accord with Iran, so they can redeploy from Iraq.

The protesters do protest women's treatment.

Larry G: I vote secular atleast. I'm involved here, with the Iranian community. Unfortunately they say issues as socialism will be discussed after the mullahs are gone. A recipe for trouble.

Tragedy 101: I see possibilities of democracy in Iran. Ultimately capitalism will have to go, because it can't guarantee democracy in a poor country.

Tony: A divided ruling class, is a condition for revolution. If only the working class would unite. Oil workers brought down the Shah. The mullahs were the counterrevolution.

Ducky: In the end the US will negotiate with the Taliban. Karzai used to support the Taliban.

News Updates Today said...

Dear friend

Very happy and marvelous New Year wishes to you and your family. God may bless you for a new wonderful year.

Wishes from your new friend, am, Nivetha. I just want to start this New Year with some new friends like you. Will you accept my invitation?

If you too like the same, I feel happier. If you accept my friendship, just add my reference link to your friend’s blog list. I already added you in my friends list

My reference Title: Today News Updates, URL:

Hope our friendship will make us this news year brighter.

Again New Year wishes from

Anonymous said...

Renegade Eye,

Perhaps ultimately, but capitalism is a necessary phase for a country to pass through. Like adolescence, it can't be avoided. It must be endured.

First establish democracy. Then advance government.


Start where they are.

Frank Partisan said...

Nivetha: Happy Holidays.

I couldn't leave a message at your blog. My browser didn't work. Too many toys at your blog. I was dizzy from all the moving type.

I'd be glad to link to your blog.

Tragedy: Thank you for all your visits here.

Democracy is possible with socialism. Distortions came with Stalinism. No material base for Stalinism now.

A poor country shouldn't have to pass through capitalism, because the capitalist class is too weak to accomplish democratic demands.

SecondComingOfBast said...

"A poor country shouldn't have to pass through capitalism, because the capitalist class is too weak to accomplish democratic demands."

China? They aren't democratic yet by any stretch of the imagination, but overtime they might become so, and if they do their adoption of capitalism might be the "gateway drug", so to speak.

The thing about that is, once an addict, always an addict. That could apply to some forms of socialism as well, unfortunately.

As for your statement that the protesters are seemingly concerned about women's rights, I don't believe it for a second. You do know what lip service is, don't you?

If they ever get too strongly involved with women's rights advancement, they will lose the support of the people, so I doubt they'll ever go down that road. They might stand at the crossroads and wave some placards, then they'll continue down their usual path.

Tragedy 101-

It's my position that whenever a country calls out to the US for "leadership", what they are really saying is "kindly give us your money and otherwise do what the fuck we tell you to do".

I don't care what the hell they do. I don't care about their human rights records, or what kind of political or economic system they have, or what their religion is, or anything else. I just want them to keep their shit on their side of their border and away from my side of this one. It's just that simple.

Nivetha said...

Dear Renegade

Thanks for your review to my blog... I hope i would present still more stuff in my blog

Frank Partisan said...

Nivetha: I tried on 2 computers. Your comment section doesn't work.

I did link to your blog.

Pagan: In Iran today, more women than men graduate college.

If there is regime change, there will be significant changes. The next election will have the bulk of voters under 25 yrs.

SecondComingOfBast said...


I know that women have more rights in Iran than in any other Islamic country, except maybe Turkey, and that's probably exactly why they won't get any more.

Women also had more rights in Iraq under Saddam than are seen in most Muslim countries.

I think that if the truth were known, most women in the majority of Muslim countries are fine with their lives as is. If you want to fix things for the minority of those who aren't satisfied with the status quo, that's going to require the implementation of some form of republic, with guaranteed constitutional rights and protections for all citizens. That's going to be a tough nut to crack.

Iraq was easy. There you have two large minority groups with their own sets of demands and concerns. It's easy to see the wisdom of constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections in a situation like that.

Now try to implement that in a country where everybody pretty much adheres to the same religious affiliation, and sect. Iranians aren't overly concerned about the prospect of women donning suicide belts and blowing up in the middle of the market place because they want the right to wear short skirts and go out dancing.

troutsky said...

I still don't see any strike actions being called but things will not be the same.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I think the Turkey is what would be tried. The problem is that this isn't even 1910. The capitalist class in a country like Iran, is too weak. It will fear both the working class, and other capitalists. Even a move toward democracy, can have ramifications. Eventually George Bush toned down talking democracy, when he saw what could happen.

Troutsky: The working class participation has been spotty. Auto workers have been involved. It was oil workers who brought down the Shah. The Shah industrialized, and created an industrial proletariat, that overthrew him. That working class had no unions, so no history of compromise.

SecondComingOfBast said...


Rome wasn't built in a day. Capitalism will have to be built and developed. Why is it that you think only socialism can develop where there is no great tradition or strength of socialism, but no other system can do so?

There are plenty of capitalist nations and businesses that are practically frothing at the mouth as we speak for the opportunity to help develop Iran economically.

The trick, and where socialists could if they would make a positive impact, is in looking out for the rights of the working class in a way that is sensible. You know, in other words, reasonable.

But your people just can't help themselves. You'll fuck things up by demanding too much, and throwing a monkey wrench in the works when you don't get it yesterday.

What's the socialist position on having more than one wife, by the way? You do know that having a wife, or wives, is a matter of ownership, right? Kindly explain how socialism is going to crack that nut.

Frank Partisan said...

Rome wasn't built in a day. Capitalism will have to be built and developed. Why is it that you think only socialism can develop where there is no great tradition or strength of socialism, but no other system can do so?

Just like the US where people tried the school of George Bush, that didn't work so they tried Obama. Maybe next there will be mass cynicism, or a labor party.

Iran will try a mixed economy. People are seeing what being the streets does to the mullahs, they can do the same to a Mousavi, who is a weak person.

Marxism is only about the commanding heights of the economy, not the small business or the shoe shine guy. Stalinism nationalized what it didn't have to.

The wives question is odd. Polygamy would be abolished.

There is no material basis for Iran to be a capitalist power. China had an already built industrial base, an unending supply of cheap labor, and a mostly at first nationalized economy. They didn't allow their markets to be flooded like Russia. Iran doesn't have those conditions.

SecondComingOfBast said...

So socialists would ban polygamy?

THAT is your answer?

And the majority of Iranians who view polygamy as a right codified in the Quran should view this stance-in what way, exactly? Help me out here.

So maybe you socialists will go the education route? Teach young Iranian children that the Quran is old-fashioned, backwards, superstitious nonsense, and oppressive-especially towards women, whom they have been taught for generations are inferior to men-according to Mohammed, mind you.

And their Iranian, Shi'ite Muslim parents will be fine with this?

I guess you could try to tell them that Mohammed was a socialist, albeit of a rough prototype. There could be some justification for that. All you have to do is explain to them that modern day socialism is a progression over that prototype advanced by Mohammed.

You know, an improvement.

Think they might go for that?

Ducky's here said...

Iraq was easy. There you have two large minority groups with their own sets of demands and concerns. It's easy to see the wisdom of constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections in a situation like that.


Huh? We caught a break in Iraq. The fundamentalist crazies were to far gone for the Iraqi Sunni's to stomach. That alliance never gelled and we were able to take advantage of it.

Not before the country was ethnically cleansed, lost its professional class, had its archeological treasures plundered and gave away its oil income but it sure was easy.

So easy we're still there. And watch Kirkuk fall down go boom when we leave.

Ducky's here said...

Pagan, what is this hangup with polygamy? You a Branch Davidian?

It isn't that common in the Muslim world, certainly not in cosmopolitan areas like Tehran.

Anonymous said...

Pagan: They will ban polygamy. When they ban marriage.

Marriage in all forms is inherently Capitalistic. It is a way to exchange one commodity for another, aids in transferring title and wealth, and provides heirs.

Ducky: They may kill you for political activism, will they do less for religous activism?

Ren: Hegelian Philosophy states capitalism is a natural step in materialist history and as such probably cannot be avoided. Marx's idea that Communism is a natural step has never been proved, just postulated by Marx.

SecondComingOfBast said...


I meant Iraq would be comparatively easy. Iraq actually would have been easier if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., had not stubbornly stuck to their failed initial strategy for as long as they did. They could have prevented the looting, or at least made the effort. They just stood back and let it happen, mainly because they didn't send enough troops in to secure the country after Saddam lost his grip.

My point was that Iraq was far more divided. The Iranians are far more united than the Iraqis in some things. When a country is united, you can work at building alliances, and you might eventually get everyone to come to an accord if you go about it the right way. When you have a country that is united, there's not much you can do with them.

When it comes to Shi'ia Islam, they are united. That is why the mullahs and the guards are constantly trying to drag us into this, like for example by taking that oil field in Iraq, hoping we will react. I think Obama is doing the right thing, for once, in holding back. He knows that if we throw our weight behind the rebels, it will help the mullahs mobilize the general population against the rebels.

In other words, the country would be solidly united against the West, and the protest movement would lose traction because of that.

And then here comes Ren, saying polygamy would be outlawed. WTF? Who cares what the percentage is of people who actually engage in polygamy. It's still a part of their cultural heritage, their religion.

It might come as a hard pill for you to swallow Duckster, but they aren't going to listen to you on this matter. Let me spell it out for you in a way you might understand. Suppose you passed a law here in the US that parents had to teach their children that it is alright to be homosexual, or at the very least that it would be illegal to interfere with the state educational system teaching this.

What do you think the response to this would be? It wouldn't matter than only ten percent of people are homosexual. It wouldn't even matter whether or not they had kids. What would matter is, it would be bloody hell to pay.

Moreover, it doesn't stop with polygamy, there are plenty of other things that socialism would frown on, like mandating women should remain veiled in public, honor killings, all kinds of things that, quite frankly, where I don't think they are going to care much for your opinion.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Tragedy 101-

"Ren: Hegelian Philosophy states capitalism is a natural step in materialist history and as such probably cannot be avoided. Marx's idea that Communism is a natural step has never been proved, just postulated by Marx."

I think the idea is that things come full circle. Mankind supposedly (according to them) was originally socialist of a rough prototype, and eventually they will go back to that, only they will be more socially and culturally advanced. Then the state will wither away eventually, as there will no longer be a need for it. That would be coming full circle too of course.

It would make more sense if earliest man actually had been socialist.

I guess that's why leaders in socialist countries become personality cult figures so easily. Their like leaders of a troop of apes. They get all the females and pass the leftovers on to their most loyal followers and terrorize everybody else. That's pretty much how things go full circle. Just look at Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo, etc., the list goes on and on.

They either die in office after a long life of oppression of their peers and underlings and the use of state terror apparatus, or they are removed from office by violence and/or skullduggery, just like an ape wanting to exert his superiority over the tribe by killing the ruler and taking his place.

When there are no rights of ownership, and only "The People" own property, that means the state acting supposedly in the interest of "The People" exercise ownership, meaning who controls the state controls everything.

Mankind advanced beyond that stage precisely because it gradually recognized and granted rights of individual ownership. Sure, that included the right to own other people at first, but it was still something of an advance over total state (or dictator, if you will) ownership and control over all.

We advanced beyond that to a recognition of the rights of individual freedom and dignity. With that always comes the potential for ownership of property, including wealth.

Going full circle by it's nature means going backwards. It might well be unavoidable, but it's nothing to look forward to.

Frank Partisan said...

I'll reply tonight. I wrote answers to comments, and my browser deleted everything when I tried posting.

Pagan: When you use ape analogies, talking about people, you are mostly dehumanizing yourself.

SecondComingOfBast said...

"Pagan: When you use ape analogies, talking about people, you are mostly dehumanizing yourself."

There's no analogy to it. Comparing some people to apples and some to oranges is an analogy. Calling them apes is merely stating a simple biological fact.

Klaatu said...

A secular Iran will be like a Latin American country.
I know that religion is nonsense, but at least religion gives enough rage against Imperialism.
With religion, the fight is global. Without it, every nationalist movement is narrow, local, and parochial.

Frank Partisan said...

Klaatu: Thank you for visiting.

There is nothing internationalist about sectarian warfare. If you believe that, you are falling into rightist conspiracy views.

Tragedy: Do you believe that the capitalist system is eternal? I grant that capitalism will remain, whether a government is fascist, a military coup or democracy. The reason it survives is because it's unplanned.

Marx was never writing about a poor country, being the first to try a socialist revolution. Not even Lenin and Trotsky believed socialism would work in Russia. They were counting on Germany.

Unless you believe capitalism is static, under the right circumstances and the right leadership, capitalism will fall. Stalinism died, so now their is an opening for real socialism.

Pagan: I used to think you were thoughtful. You put together a list of Stalinists and nationalists, call them socialists, then call the workers and peasants apes, it's worthless talking to you. How about Hitler, that a personality cult clearly of the right.

SecondComingOfBast said...


So, instead of taking into consideration what I am saying, you act defensively and apply words to me that I did not say?

I did not call workers and peasants apes. Kindly point out where I said that. I did not. I was calling every human being on the face of the planet an ape. And I was not speaking symbolically or allegorically. I was speaking literally. Mankind is an ape. The sooner people learn to deal with that FACT the sooner we can move on.

I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that chimpanzees are more genetically similar to humans, than they are to gorillas. There are different kinds of apes, we are just one more kind. That's all there is to it.

Whether you want to call the people I listed socialists, dictators, fascists, statists, whatever label you want to put on them, my "analogy" is still dead on, and yes it applies to Hitler. They all acted or now act (or eventually will act) like a bull ape protecting his dominion-his territory. Again, it was not an analogy. It is just people being what they are-apes.

And whatever they ended up being, they started out allegedly trying to be socialists, or at least, that is what they claimed they were doing, were they not? Therefore, congrats to them-they demonstrated clearly what would happen when mankind in large numbers goes full circle, back to their "socialist" roots. They fall back to their ancient ape heritage, only without the fur, and with caviar or some other luxury instead of bananas.

Don't feel bad, you're not the first person to object to reality, and you won't be the last to run in terror at the thought that humans might not be so special after all. But there it is. It's just what you make of it, no more no less.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Even the Bible hints at this, if you know how to read it. Satan in the form of a serpent tells Eve that she is an immortal goddess, so special she will never die. Adam follows suit. Their eyes open and they realize they are "naked".

TRANSLATION-they have genitals, just like any other animal.

Then God reprimands them for believing Satan's lies about their alleged godhood, and tells them the real truth.

TRANSLATION-"No you're not a God. At the end of the day you're just another miserable fucking beast."

And people have been running from the truth of "the garden" (jungle) ever since then.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Leave it to human beings to take the truth as an insult. Must be more evidence of that ape nature we keep hiding from.

Frank Partisan said...

A certain group of apes, had to climb. It was the first step towards developing humans. They used arms separate from their feet. They learned to stand erect.

Humanity is different than apes. Their erect gait is clumsy. Once they stopped walking on all fours, they could use their hands to throw things.

They became meat eaters. With the more balanced diet, the brain developed.

We came from apes, but we are different. We can adapt to any climate. Humanity evolved to even create art and science. Humanity can consciously change nature. Apes and other animals can change nature, but not by design. At times nature takes revenge for our victories.

Animals change nature by its presence. Humanity masters it consciously.

SecondComingOfBast said...


That's more like it. But the point is, if we come from apes, we are apes, no matter how advanced we are. We are what we are. Our basic primal instincts and even our actions are ape-like. Did you know apes can learn to count? They can learn to spell? They can learn sign language? They can learn to paint pictures? Cheetah of the Tarzan movies paints. Everything we do, no matter how advanced is still an outgrowth and development of ape instincts. There's no getting around it.

If another animal, say cats, at some point in time become the dominant life form on earth and become intelligent and cultured, they will still be cats-not dogs, apes, or "humans", but cats.

The Sentinel said...

Human beings are animals like any other albeit the most intelligent species. That is all that separates us from the rest of the wild life.

All of our clothes, buildings and general feelings of grandeur are just a by product of our intelligence and do not make us in any way special.

Most humans believe that we are ‘God’s special little creature’ and above the laws of nature; we find out every so often that we are not. Despite our immense intelligence, nature is still our ultimate master.

SecondComingOfBast said...


Exactly right. As for this-

"Most humans believe that we are ‘God’s special little creature’ and above the laws of nature; we find out every so often that we are not. Despite our immense intelligence, nature is still our ultimate master."

A great example of this is how people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. Because they held that mankind was God's special creation, the earth we lived on had to have been the center of the universe, they reasoned.

They persecuted anybody who claimed the truth-that the earth actually revolved around the sun-on the basis of religious heresy. We know how that story turned out.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. It is what it is, and it's what you make of it. If you see it as something bad or demeaning, there's probably nothing that's going to make you see it any other way. It's really neither good nor bad, it's just a fact. Best to face up to it, and move on.

Another thing in the Bible that implies that ancient man had some kind of sense as to man's animal nature was the statement that God created man from the dust of the ground. You could substitute for that a phrase like "God created human beings not as spiritual beings such as angels, but as beasts", and the meaning would be exactly the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is any kind of proof of some divine revelation or something like that, but it does show that on some deep, inner level, people have always been in tune with this. Or at least some of them were to an extent. After all, what we are is hard wired into our unconscious minds, or on some deep level.

If ancient man could see this, it shouldn't be that hard for people today to see it.

Frank Partisan said...

Apes can learn to count, when in the presence of humanity. In the wild they are not able. Being in contact with humanity advances them.

Dogs can be taught to obey verbal commands, but not in the wild.

Frank Partisan said...

Make your last comments.

Tomorrow evening I'll start a new topic.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye,

Then maybe if man disappeared we wouldn’t have counting apes and dogs that can beg.

No great loss.

The earth would still revolve around the sun. The Apes would still eat, fornicate, play, fight and crap, as would the dogs and every other creature on this planet.

In fact they would be left to do so without the ever present and ever increasing threat that we might wipe their species out completely through our actions.

But even the trait of teaching and training is not unique as ants have been proven to interactively teach and train rather then just repeat behaviour.

The only time man enters the arena as a ‘special creature’ apart from the beasts is when religion comes into it – that is the notion of a soul being unique to humanity, and you do not strike me as the religious type.

(And religion is main reason we cannot accept our real status in life I suspect, Pagan Temple.)

Other then that we are just ‘Naked Apes’ as the excellent book and series by Desmond Morris expands upon; special and unique only in our intelligence, speech and opposable thumbs but outdone by so many other ways by so many other creatures.

SecondComingOfBast said...


Just to add, mankind didn't evolve to stand just so he could throw things. Man was probably throwing his feces at each other long before he learned to throw rocks and spears. Man probably learned to walk upright in order to travel long distances, and even more importantly, in order to be able to carry objects, such as animal carcasses killed for food, for long distances back to their family and tribal dwellings.

This led to other stages of development, such as invention of tools for lifting and carrying, etc.

That was a good point though about eating meat providing a better balanced diet and thus improving brain function. Probably due to loss of habitat, the same thing that forced the migrations and the need to journey farther afield for food to begin with.


Everything is "special" in it's own way. Our beliefs do not necessarily conflict with religion, in fact they might even compliment them in some regards. The Bible teaches the wisdom of humility. Well, nothing teaches humility quite like the thought of your ancestors swinging from limb to limb.

Mankind might have a special place in the grand scheme of things, but so do insects. Mankind thinks it is better than dogs. Dogs don't see it that way.

We're not better, we're just lucky our ancestors were the ones who lost their habitat and we're just advanced enough to be able to adapt to the change. If it had been gorillas or chimps, or for that matter possibly even some other fairly advanced mammal, the story might not have been much different, depending on different circumstances.

And in keeping with the subject matter of the post, if anybody disagrees with what we're saying here, I have two words for them-

Mahmoud Ahmadinajahd.

wedding dresses said...

Having perfect wedding dresses for your special day is important for every bridals. We have various Evening Dresses, Prom Dresses, Bridesmaid Dresses, Cocktail Dresses, Flower Girl Dresses for bridals.

dinoibo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat